RSA No.3823 of 2006 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3823 of 2006
Date of Decision: 3.9.2009
Lakhbir Singh ......Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri S.S. Khaira, Advocate, for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the
judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby
suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff challenging the order of discharge
dated 4.2.2007, was dismissed in appeal.
The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as Special Police Officer
(SPO) in the Punjab Police. Since he abstained from duties with effect from
11.1.1997, an order of discharge was passed on 4.2.1997. It is the said
order, which was challenged by the plaintiff before the Civil Court.
The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that though the
the Punjab Police Rules are not applicable to SPOs, but the Rules of natural
justice are applicable and, therefore, the order of discharge passed is illegal.
The said judgment and decree has been set aside by the learned first
RSA No.3823 of 2006 (2)
Appellate Court.
The stand of the plaintiff was that while playing Kabaddi on
11.1.1997, he felt pain in his waist and then remained under treatment for
24 days and that when he reported for duty on 4.2.1997, he was not
permitted to join. At that time, his arm was fractured while playing Kabaddi.
The learned first Appellate Court has found that no evidence of treatment
of disease has been brought on record. The story of treatment has been
found to be concocted one. The learned first Appellate Court has also
noticed that one of the conditions of recruitment is that the appointment of
the plaintiff would be on daily wages and if the work and conduct is not
found to be satisfactory, then the plaintiff can be discharged at any time
without issuing any notice.
Division Benches of this Court in Parveen Kumar v. State of
Punjab, 2001(2) SCT 527, Balour Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) SCT
223 and Raminder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2003(2) PLR 107,
have examined the rights of the SPOs, in the context of initiation of
departmental proceedings against them. It has been held that SPO is a daily
wager and therefore, the procedure prescribed for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings is not applicable to such officer. In Raminder Singh’s case
(supra), it has been held that the procedure for disciplinary proceedings
would be applicable only when the SPOs are enrolled as constables. It has
been held to the following effect:-
“There is no dispute with the proposition of law
that a public servant cannot be dismissed or
removed from service as a measure of punishment
without holding a due and proper enquiry. A public
servant can only be dismissed or removed by way
of punishment after complying with rules of
RSA No.3823 of 2006 (3)natural justice. However, in the present case the
petitioner could not claim the status of a Constable
as he was never absorved as such. The provisions
of Punjab Police Rules would become applicable
only after absorption of the petitioner as a
Constable…….”
In view of the aforesaid judgments, the finding upholding the
order of discharge for the reason that the plaintiff has abstained from duties
for a long period of 24 days, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent
illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of
law in the present second appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
03-09-2009
ds